The presentation of complicated variable amplitude stress
histories can be simplified by defining average or RMS values of the stress
event characteristics, i.e. the maximum stresses and positive stress ranges of
the history. The difference between the
average value and the RMS value of a given characteristic is normally not more
than 3 percent when one is considering stress histories with more than 1000
stress events. For average stress analysis,
one uses
|
(9.3.2)
|
while for RMS analysis, one uses
|
(9.3.3)
|
where si
is the characteristic (maximum stress or stress range) for the ith stress event and N is the total number of stress events.
Similar analysis schemes have also been employed where the
slope (p) of the crack growth rate
power law expression (Equation 9.3.1) is used to calculate a representative
stress, i.e.
|
(9.3.4)
|
Experience has shown that such schemes (Equation 9.3.4) are not
appreciably of more value than the average or RMS determined characteristics.
The RMS equation (Equation 9.3.3) was applied to the three
transport wing stress histories to obtain RMS values for the maximum stress and
stress range. The results are
summarized in Table 9.3.3.
Table 9.3.3.
Per Cycle Root Mean Square (RMS)Representative Stress Values
for the Three Wing Stress Histories
Stress History
|
Maximum Stress (ksi)
|
Stress Range (ksi)
|
Cycles per 100 Flights
|
Center Wing (BL-70)
|
8.00
|
3.52
|
18268
|
Inner Wing (WS-733)
|
7.24
|
3.33
|
41174
|
Outer Wing
|
8.01
|
3.38
|
62562
|
Based on the RMS analyses presented in Table
9.3.3, it appears as if the three stress histories are quite similar on a
per cycle basis (the stress ranges are within five (5) percent, and the maximum
stresses are within ten (10) percent).
Based on a constant amplitude analysis of these stress conditions, the
damage per cycle would be expected also to be similar. From Table 9.3.3,
one can note the number of cycles applied per 100 flight block differs
substantially from stress history to stress history. If the RMS stresses are similar and the number of stresses per
flight differ, then one would expect that the damage per flight would favor the
stress history with the most stress events per flight.
One of the reasons that the RMS representative stresses can not
be blindly used in a constant amplitude equation to accurately estimate crack
growth behavior is because the damage is a non-linear function of the different
events in the history. The analyst must
understand where the damage is coming from and isolate on those events. For example, a transport wing stress history
generates damage as a result of both GAG cycle loading and gust/maneuver cycle
loading. A second analysis was
therefore conducted on the three wing histories to obtain per flight
characteristics for the GAG and gust/maneuver cycles. This analysis is presented in Table 9.3.4.
Table 9.3.4.
Per Flight Root Mean Square Representative Stress Values for
the Three Wing Stress Histories
Stress History
|
GAG Max Stress (ksi)
|
GAG Min Stress (ksi)
|
Gust/Manu. Max Stress (ksi)
|
Gust/Manu. Stress Range (ksi)
|
Number of Gust/Maneuver Cycles
|
Center Wing (BL-70)
|
12.23
|
18.64
|
7.97
|
3.35
|
182
|
Inner Wing (WS-733)
|
13.14
|
18.13
|
7.21
|
3.31
|
411
|
Outer Wing
|
14.73
|
20.01
|
7.99
|
3.29
|
625
|
Relative to the per flight
RMS representative stress values for GAG and gust/maneuver cycles, the three
stress histories are shown to be relatively similar. The magnitude of the GAG cycle appears to be increasing as the
location moves outboard; this would indicate that the GAG cycle causes more
damage per flight in the outboard wing than at the inner and center wing
locations. We note that the largest
number of gust/maneuver cycles occur at the outer wing location and this would
also favor more damage per flight (due to gust/maneuver cycles) than the other
two locations.